That Guy Jeff:No, I want all people protected from theft. You input your labor, your skills, your time. You get out resources, usually in the common form of "money". That money is yours. I don't care if it's $10 or $10,000,000, the only way that money should leave your hands is you voluntarily agreeing to part with it. If someone walks up and says "give me that money or else", it's morally wrong. At least to me. See, you think it's OK if the guy taking the money is going to use it for something you think is going to create a " functioning society with a happier healthier populace ". But I don't care how good the expected (but not guaranteed) outcome is. It's still wrong to walk up to someone and say "give me that money or else". That's the difference; I don't think the ends justify the means. It's OK that we differ on this, just know that I'm going to vote, petition, and fight tooth and nail to prevent the concept "personal property" from being meaningless. And, as it turns out, the people who agree that personal property is meaningful tend to have more of it expend defending it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for your side "winning" anytime soon. :)

Again, you're dismissing the fact that leverage exists. It's not stealing from anyone, it's paying people a living wage for their work instead of taking all the profits simply because you're in a position to do so.

The investor class is essentially modern day feudal lords that drive all the monetary gains of the working class to themselves. This is simply sophisticated thievery. However you think it's theft when people who are exploited for their efforts get a much bigger slice of that pie that they made themselves.

That possibility is that McDonald's could double its restaurant-worker wages and not increase its prices at all ... but instead just make a little less money. In other words, it could better balance the interests of all three of its stakeholders - shareholders, customers, and employees - instead of shafting employees to deliver as much profit as possible to shareholders.According to the Kansas City researcher who did the original wages-to-Big Mac study, McDonald's spends about 17% of U.S. revenue on employee salaries and benefits.If that ratio holds true worldwide, McDonald's would have spent about $4.7 billion on salaries and benefits last year, on revenue of $27 billion. Meanwhile, the company made about $8.5 billion of operating income. (This is for the corporate parent, not the franchises.).If McDonald's doubled the wages of its restaurant employees (not management, which is presumably very well-compensated), it might add, say, another $3 billion of annual expenses. This would knock its operating profit down to a still healthy $5.5 billion.Importantly, however, $5.5 billion is still a lot of money. McDonald's would still be very profitable.Big Macs would still cost the same as they do today (billions and billions wo ...

Yeah, but why would they? If you can pay $4.7 billion for something, why pay $9.4 billion for it? Nobody pays more than they have to, for anything.

MayoSlather:There are morals that are innate and key to our survival as a species, and there are also very consistent things that cause suffering and joy in all people.

The wealthy you're defending are not abiding by these morals. They don't care about preserving the planet, they don't care about the quality of life of others, all they care about is any excuse to take more for themselves.

Haha. I believe the "innate morals" of all living things is "kill anything that threatens me or run away from it", "eat as much as I can", and "fark like rabbits". Anything greater than "survival of the fittest" is something we made up. This hippy/religious 'universal morality' shtick is completely unsupported.

And actually, the more wealth we create as a species the better our species is doing. Look at huge surge of wealth in the last 200 years. Food shortages are plummeting. Average lifespans are skyrocketing. In 1820 70% of the world lived on less than a dollar a day, now the number is down to 20%. The more wealth is created, the better we do as a species. This modern "make money" attitude and the industrial revolution it brought have propelled our species to new heights.

Dusk-You-n-Me:Because you say so? Well I say different. As do a majority of Americans

How much effort, skill, and time does it take to flip a burger? You can make it worth whatever amount you want, just increase everything above it by a proportional amount.

I'm actually a really good tipper or at least I used to be. I haven't changed the percentage, but somewhere along the line someone decided to change the definitions of what's a good tip and what's not. I usually figure out 20% and round up to the nearest number that makes sense. But it's not based on the financial need of the waitress. Damned if I even know what her financial situation is. It's "was the service good?" if yes, give this amount. If not, give less.

geek_mars:I'd gladly pay an extra few cents per item if it meant every cashier in that store could earn a living wage

So, when you buy something off Craigslist, do you call up the guy and say "Hey, I see your ad said you were selling it cause you hit rough times. So I'll pay your double what you're asking!". You don't. People find bargains. People look for low prices, they clip coupons, they join discount clubs, they check deal websites. Whether your paying someone for a camera, a hamburger, or an hour of data entry doesn't matter. You try and get the best price you can. And I just don't see anything wrong with that.

That Guy Jeff:Haha. I believe the "innate morals" of all living things is "kill anything that threatens me or run away from it", "eat as much as I can", and "fark like rabbits". Anything greater than "survival of the fittest" is something we made up. This hippy/religious 'universal morality' shtick is completely unsupported.

And actually, the more wealth we create as a species the better our species is doing. Look at huge surge of wealth in the last 200 years. Food shortages are plummeting. Average lifespans are skyrocketing. In 1820 70% of the world lived on less than a dollar a day, now the number is down to 20%. The more wealth is created, the better we do as a species. This modern "make money" attitude and the industrial revolution it brought have propelled our species to new heights.

MayoSlather:That Guy Jeff: No, I want all people protected from theft. You input your labor, your skills, your time. You get out resources, usually in the common form of "money". That money is yours. I don't care if it's $10 or $10,000,000, the only way that money should leave your hands is you voluntarily agreeing to part with it. If someone walks up and says "give me that money or else", it's morally wrong. At least to me. See, you think it's OK if the guy taking the money is going to use it for something you think is going to create a " functioning society with a happier healthier populace ". But I don't care how good the expected (but not guaranteed) outcome is. It's still wrong to walk up to someone and say "give me that money or else". That's the difference; I don't think the ends justify the means. It's OK that we differ on this, just know that I'm going to vote, petition, and fight tooth and nail to prevent the concept "personal property" from being meaningless. And, as it turns out, the people who agree that personal property is meaningful tend to have more of it expend defending it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for your side "winning" anytime soon. :)

Again, you're dismissing the fact that leverage exists. It's not stealing from anyone, it's paying people a living wage for their work instead of taking all the profits simply because you're in a position to do so.

The investor class is essentially modern day feudal lords that drive all the monetary gains of the working class to themselves. This is simply sophisticated thievery. However you think it's theft when people who are exploited for their efforts get a much bigger slice of that pie that they made themselves.

Your logic is twisted.

Haha, yeah. I remember when CompUSA sent their knights to drag me away from home at swordpoint to work for them. Seriously tough: OK, leverage exists. I'm buying a house, the old owner is in a hurry to sell it because he's moving out of country. I... still try to get the best price on the house. I'm buying a car, the salesman makes an unreasonable offer, I walk out and wait for them to call me with a better offer when they need the sales numbers. Hell, I had leverage getting my current job. I'm a fairly rare skillset around here, so I negotiated my salary up. Was that wrong? Was it "stealing" for me to try and get them to agree to pay me what was in MY best interests instead of THEIRS? There's nothing wrong with leverage, and there's nothing wrong with trying to get the best deal you can. As long as no one is forced by anyone to do anything, I'm perfectly OK with whatever they are doing.

And that's really the key. Keep everything voluntary. Let people decide for themselves what they are and aren't going to do. If someone wants to take a job for $5 an hour, whatever, your life. If you want to negotiate for a job making $60 an hour, whatever, your life. If you want to offer your $50 stereo on ebay for $20, if you want to offer you $50 stereo for $100, if you want to offer your body for $100 an hour, if you want to get an abortion, if you want to smoke pot, if you want to cut of your own arms off, if you want to dress in a chicken suit and try to cross the Alps while yodeling, WHATEVER, I don't care as long as it's your choice.

Now, by all means, if this really turns into a feudal system and men with swords (or, I guess guns now) show up and FORCE you to work for McDonalds for minimum wage then something HAS to change. That's effing wrong, and I will not tolerate it at all. But that's not happening.

That Guy Jeff:Haha. I believe the "innate morals" of all living things is "kill anything that threatens me or run away from it", "eat as much as I can", and "fark like rabbits". Anything greater than "survival of the fittest" is something we made up. This hippy/religious 'universal morality' shtick is completely unsupported.

Well there's plenty of academic papers published on the matter, and the philosophers of the Enlightenment delved heavily into this subject, their thoughts regarding fundamental morality are groovy ideas which this country was founded upon...I mean if that's hippie bullshiat then OK. It's hippie bullshiat I'm happy to believe in.

It's not religion by the way. Religion is based on a doctrine, which has no reasoned explanation other than them believing it to be the thoughts of a deity.

That Guy Jeff:And actually, the more wealth we create as a species the better our species is doing. Look at huge surge of wealth in the last 200 years. Food shortages are plummeting. Average lifespans are skyrocketing. In 1820 70% of the world lived on less than a dollar a day, now the number is down to 20%. The more wealth is created, the better we do as a species. This modern "make money" attitude and the industrial revolution it brought have propelled our species to new heights.

That's called technology not wealth, it's time capitalists stop taking credit for people a lot smarter than them.

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means. I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments. Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft"). They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen). Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means. I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments. Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft"). They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen). Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).

Alright. What gives the state the ability to take resources from you but not highwaymen?

That Guy Jeff:And that's really the key. Keep everything voluntary. Let people decide for themselves what they are and aren't going to do. If someone wants to take a job for $5 an hour, whatever, your life. If you want to negotiate for a job making $60 an hour, whatever, your life. If you want to offer your $50 stereo on ebay for $20, if you want to offer you $50 stereo for $100, if you want to offer your body for $100 an hour, if you want to get an abortion, if you want to smoke pot, if you want to cut of your own arms off, if you want to dress in a chicken suit and try to cross the Alps while yodeling, WHATEVER, I don't care as long as it's your choice.

Now, by all means, if this really turns into a feudal system and men with swords (or, I guess guns now) show up and FORCE you to work for McDonalds for minimum wage then something HAS to change. That's effing wrong, and I will not tolerate it at all. But that's not happening.

I don't understand why leverage is such a hard thing to understand. I know it destroys every naive libertarian idea you have, but it's simply a reality. A reality that must be managed by a government so we can maintain our hippie value system of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That Guy Jeff:ChildOfBhaal: That Guy Jeff: I don't think the ends justify the means.

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means. I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments. Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft"). They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen). Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).

Alright. What gives the state the ability to take resources from you but not highwaymen?

Well, I was more trying to translate between you and your interlocutors/re-focus on the central issue (which you've just posed)/shake the jar with the bugs in it. It's pretty late here. But I'll take a stab at it. The state brings a good deal more moral authority to the table, for starters. However one feels about the government, one must concede that it does more good works (the military and the interstates, at least, right?) and employs more benevolent rhetoric than a bandit does (Robin Hood possibly excepted).

The state also conferred the property rights that you hold so dear. Before we came up with the notion of the polity, your property consisted of whatever you could pile within range of your spear. It was only after some sort of legal system was put in place that property consisted of anything more than mere possession of an object or that theft became a concept. If the state conferred property rights, I'd say that it's somewhat more justified in partially dispelling those rights than some churlish footpad.

Finally, the state, unlike the desperado, acts under color of law. The same tax code that you feel coerces you also constrains the governments actions. There are significant restrictions on the time and manner in which the state can seize your property, as well as on the amount of property that can be seized. The state, unlike the brigand, will afford you due process when it seizes your property.

That Guy Jeff:ChildOfBhaal: That Guy Jeff: I don't think the ends justify the means.

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means. I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments. Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft"). They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen). Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).

Alright. What gives the state the ability to take resources from you but not highwaymen?

I did a quick 5 minute googling of Bud Konheim... and he appears to be a relatively good guy. Articles talk about his business savvy and also about how he treats his employees more than fairly, using nice employment packages to give them stake in the company (use the carrot, not the stick).

But he's old. He's been in the fashion industry for over 50 years now. Maybe his head is now mush. It happens I guess.

geek_mars:MayoSlather: ...Essentially our productive powers are not reflected in the well being of the common man.

The rich have rigged the rules so that wealth distribution is tied directly to what makes them the most money, not what is best for increasing the quality of life in the world, and that's why wealth inequality is a problem and why capitalism in its current state needs to be addressed.

I have never (and probably will never) understood how our society reached a point where the end-all/be-all of civilization was the enabling of commerce. How is business more important than humanity? Shouldn't the purpose of society be the advancement of humanity? Why do we continue to curtail benefits for people to enable greater advances in commerce? So much is done under the guise of improving our lives when what needs to be done are the things that improve us as a people.

"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse. "

Fano:geek_mars: MayoSlather: ...Essentially our productive powers are not reflected in the well being of the common man.

The rich have rigged the rules so that wealth distribution is tied directly to what makes them the most money, not what is best for increasing the quality of life in the world, and that's why wealth inequality is a problem and why capitalism in its current state needs to be addressed.

I have never (and probably will never) understood how our society reached a point where the end-all/be-all of civilization was the enabling of commerce. How is business more important than humanity? Shouldn't the purpose of society be the advancement of humanity? Why do we continue to curtail benefits for people to enable greater advances in commerce? So much is done under the guise of improving our lives when what needs to be done are the things that improve us as a people.

"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse. "

Need and greed are what makes us human? No. These are traits all animals have.. These are the basest animal instincts, the very opposite of "humanity". Off the top of my head I can think some traits that apply to humans only:

MusicRegretPoetryPhilosophyAbstract thoughtDreams/ aspirationsScientific curiosityReflection on ourselves and a desire for personal growth

So who wrote that tripe crap that need and greed unite us in our humanity? I'd say that person has failed as a human being.

ShrykeBy the way, the very notion that the government created the middle class is pure socialist bullshiat.

Before the New Deal- no middle class. After the New Deal- large middle class.You can't hide behind WWII because WWI also blew up Europe's economy but that didn't result in a middle-class in the 1920s.

The government doesn't create wealth. The people do.

Who said anything about wealth creation? If you have all the money paid out in income and wages distributed so that the top 5% gets 80% and the bottom 95% gets 20%, you have no middle-class. If it's instead distributed so that the top 5% gets 25%, the middle 75% gets 70%, and the bottom 20% gets 5%, you have a large and viable middle-class.

That Guy JeffNot "eat McDonalds every day" poor, cause you're spending more in a day on a big mac than most people make in a day.

Okay, America Poor.

geek_marsI have never (and probably will never) understood how our society reached a point where the end-all/be-all of civilization was the enabling of commerce.

Classical Liberalism declared that property rights = human rights, which actually was an improvement over the previous system of despotic State and feudal control over property. Of course, now that the system which it was a reaction to is completely gone, we've outgrown the need for it... sadly, many still cling to it out of varying combinations of personal greed and a misplaced sense of propriety.

Hickory-smokedOurs is a government of the people, my friend.

Okay let's not go that far

That Guy Jeffno one would like a mob busting into their house and taking their stuff

It's kind of amazing how this idea that the financial assets of billionaires being exactly the same as some working stiff's personal house keeps getting thrown out there. No, they are not the same.

Why does "personal property" stop being a thing at some level?

When you're not personally involved in it. If you own a factory but don't work at it or even really have anything to do with its production process, it's not your "personal" property.

They are "ends justify the means" types of people, and I am not. For people like you, it's OK if you steal from people as long as it's for a good cause. Or, what you think is a good cause, to be a little more precise. I don't subscribe to "ends justify the means".

Don't think that the principles and rules that create, govern, and perpetuate capitalism are laws of nature. They're human-created. If we don't like how it's turning out, we have the right and even the duty to change those laws. Capitalism is a means- don't pretend it's anything else.

You see, in the world I live in, I've upped my income every single year of my working life, from FAR below the poverty line on up to firmly middle class, almost upper middle class depending on what figures I use.

Did you use your bootstraps?

Everyone deserves EXACTLY as much as they agreed to work for.

Hi there, welcome to how the economy actually works these days: You work for what you will get, because 100 people apply to every job opening. That $20/hr factory job is now $10. If you don't like it, maybe the gas station is hiring.And that's if you're lucky enough to be in a rich Western country. Elsewhere, your options are work in a sweatshop or take part in organized crime (a category which includes government and business, for the most part), because your family can't make money farming when it has to compete with subsidized American corn and your land was sold out from under you by the government for a strip mine or pop-up city.Personal determination has nothing to do with it. You won the lottery, and now you're trying to tell everyone else, "Hey, why don't you just win the lottery, huh??". Yes, yes, I'm sure you worked very hard and all that, but that plan still only works for small fraction of the people who try it. It works for some people and good for them... but it doesn't work for a lot of people, no matter how hard they bust their ass. There is no correlation between work and results in an economy where the best way to get money is by farking over other people in one way or another.Like you. I wonder how much of your prosperity is the result of theft and coercion in one form or another, whether gentrification, or paying people far less than they deserve because they have no other realistic choice, or because the raw materials in the things you sell come from a third-world country where the corrupt government is bribed by American corporations to give them resources at fire-sale rates instead of using that wealth to lift their own populations out of poverty (and if a few thousand dissidents have to be jailed and/or shot, well you have to break a few eggs)?

Haha, yeah. I remember when CompUSA sent their knights to drag me away from home at swordpoint to work for them

Why would they, when the police will do it if you don't pay rent or property taxes?

leverage exists

Here's some leverage for you: Two kids, no marketable skills, in a gentrifying neighborhood, no savings. Do you a) hold out for what you think you're worth and get evicted because you held out so long that you missed rent or b) take three shiatty jobs and live paycheck to paycheck while trying to give your kids enough to let them believe you're middle-class so you don't feel like a total piece of shiat, leaving you with no time or money with which to increase your economic mobility?

pstudent12there is no fourth world. kitsuneymg is right. the terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd refer specifically to NATO, Warsaw and NAM.NAM were the non aligned movement countries, and this 1,2,3 world was invented by Nehru in the context of NAM.It has no economic meaning whatsoever.

geek_marsGranted, the workers agree to take the job for the pay offered

People do wage labor because the alternative is homelessness, not because they want to. It's coercive- the word "agree" belongs nowhere near this.

MayoSlather The investor class is essentially modern day feudal lords that drive all the monetary gains of the working class to themselves.

In terms of political economy, capitalism is actually a worse deal for workers than feudalism was. In capitalism, a worker is paid an hourly wage regardless of their productivity, with the difference between their productivity and their wage being taken as profit by the owner class. In feudalism, workers paid the landlord a set amount and kept the rest of their productivity.

ChildOfBhaal:The state brings a good deal more moral authority to the table, for starters. However one feels about the government, one must concede that it does more good works (the military and the interstates, at least, right?) and employs more benevolent rhetoric than a bandit does (Robin Hood possibly excepted).

Governments can also systematically murder tens of millions, drop bombs on people, experiment on people, amass riches for themselves through violence, and give special deals to corporations. In fact, anything you speak ill of a corporation or a rich dude you can also say of a government or a leader. The government can also do all sorts of benevolence. Even Hitler made Volkswagen and interstates highways. States are capable of far greater evil than individuals. None of this points to some sort of innate morality of the state.

ChildOfBhaal:The state also conferred the property rights that you hold so dear. Before we came up with the notion of the polity, your property consisted of whatever you could pile within range of your spear. It was only after some sort of legal system was put in place that property consisted of anything more than mere possession of an object or that theft became a concept. If the state conferred property rights, I'd say that it's somewhat more justified in partially dispelling those rights than some churlish footpad.

People had property rights before the state. They simply had to enforce them by themselves. We delegate that defense to the state because it's easier than defending it yourself, and everything flows a lot easier if we have a common system of rules to trade under. Human advancement and wealth creation are sped up by the efficiency, but they can be slowed if inefficiency and restriction becomes the function of the state instead.

ChildOfBhaal:Finally, the state, unlike the desperado, acts under color of law. The same tax code that you feel coerces you also constrains the governments actions. There are significant restrictions on the time and manner in which the state can seize your property, as well as on the amount of property that can be seized. The state, unlike the brigand, will afford you due process when it seizes your property.

Maybe you live in a state that has rule of law and due process. I don't. In the state (country) I live in if the state really wants something, nothing is going to stop them. In the state I live in people's assets areseized for suspicion (not conviction) of drug crimes. In the state I live in there are secret laws with secret interpretations by secret courts. In the state I live in your "due process" can be summarily crushed by the government uttering "state secrets". Anything the state wants enough it gets, either through selective enforcement of it's inescapable web of laws or by simply making a new law.

yakmans_dad:ThighsofGlory: And we shouldn't complain about our oppressive government because Somalia.

Does anyone in your family kvetch about all that straw?

The Straw Nation of Somalia comes up all the time around here whenever someone mentions that there should be less regulation on various things or that taxes should be lower. Usually combined with "why don't you move to that Libertarian Paradise of Somalia?"

Cerebral Ballsy:Fano: geek_mars: MayoSlather: ...Essentially our productive powers are not reflected in the well being of the common man.

The rich have rigged the rules so that wealth distribution is tied directly to what makes them the most money, not what is best for increasing the quality of life in the world, and that's why wealth inequality is a problem and why capitalism in its current state needs to be addressed.

I have never (and probably will never) understood how our society reached a point where the end-all/be-all of civilization was the enabling of commerce. How is business more important than humanity? Shouldn't the purpose of society be the advancement of humanity? Why do we continue to curtail benefits for people to enable greater advances in commerce? So much is done under the guise of improving our lives when what needs to be done are the things that improve us as a people.

"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse. "

Need and greed are what makes us human? No. These are traits all animals have.. These are the basest animal instincts, the very opposite of "humanity". Off the top of my head I can think some traits that apply to humans only:

MusicRegretPoetryPhilosophyAbstract thoughtDreams/ aspirationsScientific curiosityReflection on ourselves and a desire for personal growth

So who wrote that tripe crap that need and greed unite us in our humanity? I'd say that person has failed as a human being.

That quote never said greed makes us human, it said greed was inherent to humans. So is a need for food, and animals eat too.

Abstract though and reflection were on your list. Try them.

Also iirc some animals play with musical instruments when given them. Elephants I believe.

AirForceVet:Terrible logic from this CEO. Claiming our poor are wealthy as compared to 99% of the rest of humanity leaves out other First World countries like Japan, Canada, Iceland, France, Germany, and even Second World countries. The dumbass is lumping our poor with the Third World, forgetting about our own Fourth World populations.

/He's not been to any remote American Indian reservations like Pine Ridge obviously.

First world, second world, third world are terms that have nothing to do with quality of life. They are Amero-centric terms that refer to whether a country is an ally, adversary, or inconsequential to the USA.